Everyone loves a winner – especially Nike. The company has just launched a PR campaign via social media after Tiger Woods recently won the Arnold Palmer Invitational. The campaign includes a photo of Woods with his quote, “Winning takes care of everything.” Cheeky! Especially since it was Woods’ original retort when asked by the press about his extramarital affairs with prostitutes.

That rather public scandal, which came after the death of his beloved father and which resulted in divorce from his wife, led to Woods’ downfall. Previously a golfer who couldn’t be beaten, he had a fall from both grace and rankings. His sponsors, all but Nike, left him.

The world-famous sportswear brand has had a tough time with its athlete representatives. When Lance Armstrong admitted that he’d cheated to win all his Tours de France, Nike raced to drop him as it did with Olympic runner Oscar Pistorius who shot and killed his girlfriend. But in the case of Tiger Woods, Nike’s market research must have shown Woods was still resonating and worth spending the $20 million a year. The reaction so far? Media and online responses seems to be suggesting that Nike is more in love with its representative than the general public, particularly the female half.

THE PR VERDICT: “C” (Distinctly OK) for Nike. Is this latest controversy on-brand?

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Consider language in its broadest context. Yes, everyone loves a winner, and while it’s well known that winning does, in fact, take care of everything, some female customers buying Nike products may not be on the same page. Perhaps, in consideration of Woods’ transgressions, it might have been better if Nike had simply congratulated Woods using the single word by their swoosh – VICTORY – and allowed the public to be happy about a sports legend’s return. Instead, Nike may have inadvertently sent a message to female customers who don’t see it Tiger’s way. The right wording, more than winning, really does take care of everything.

Lately, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) just can’t seem to do anything right. The agency, created after 9/11, has at various points been accused of failing to find weapons in undercover tests, conducting overzealous body searches, and allowing agents to sleep on the job. The latest snafu occurred this week, when it announced one of its most significant policy changes: it will begin allowing small knives (and various pieces of sporting equipment) aboard airplanes.

The change in the banned-items list was immediately met with harsh criticism. Pilots and flight attendants voiced the reasonable concern that allowing knives may imperil safety. Even passengers, who have chafed under the restrictive list, were disparaging. “It seems to be a poorly thought-out decision. I don’t pretend to understand the logic behind it,” Brandon M. Macsata, executive director of the Association for Airline Passenger Rights, told the Los Angeles Times. After all, the September 11 attacks were committed with box cutters, which are smaller than the knives that will now be permitted.

For its part, the TSA noted improved safety features on airplanes since 2001 and said the change will bring it in line with international standards and allow it “to focus on threats that can cause catastrophic damage to an airplane.” It seems they’ve forgotten that small knives can, in fact, cause catastrophic damage to airplanes, and buildings, and lives.

THE PR VERDICT: “F” (Full Fiasco) for the TSA. A poll conducted in September 2012 found that 90 percent of respondents thought the TSA was doing a “poor” or “fair” job in security screenings. This latest action won’t improve those results.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Cover your bases before making a controversial announcement. Although they don’t appear to realize it, the TSA has a brand – one it’s managing very poorly. The agency’s raison d’etre is to ensure the safety of airline personnel and the air-traveling public. The smart tactic would have been to confer with key players ahead of time and gauge their sentiment on the potential policy change. That way, they are involved in the process, can raise objections privately, and everyone is on the same page when the media comes calling. A handful of public endorsements from interested parties would have made this announcement turbulence free. As is, they should fasten their seat belts.

Who knows what George Zimmerman was thinking when he went on Fox yesterday for an hour-long interview? He clearly had messages he wanted to convey but in the end, his sit down interview probably made matters worse. The self-appointed neighborhood watchman, who made national headlines for murdering unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, looks set to continue being an ongoing lightning rod.

Presumably Zimmerman wanted to set the record straight ahead of his trial. His key message, “I’m not a racist, I’m not a murderer,” got ample airtime, but it was his other responses that made headlines. Zimmerman was asked if there was anything he regretted about the night he killed Trayvon Martin. “No sir, “ was the response. “I feel that it was God’s plan and not for me to second-guess or judge it.”

Zimmerman tried to make some amends by saying he prays for the parents of Martin daily and that he would “tell them again that [he is] sorry.” The interview concluded with Zimmerman looking into the camera apologising that his actions have polarized America. The key takeaway? The only thing guaranteed was that the interview further enraged Martin’s parents. What a mess.

The PR Verdict: “F” (Full Fiasco) for George Zimmerman. Apologies don’t work when you invoke the work of others, perhaps even blaming them, and that includes God. Where was his prep before this interview took place?

The PR Takeaway: There was so much wrong with this interview. An hour-long television interview is the wrong way to apologize. If you do choose this route, say you are sorry in a short interview without bringing God into it to reduce your culpability. After this interview aired, Trayvon Martin’s father issued a statement saying, “I simply really don’t know what God George Zimmerman is worshipping, because there’s no way that the God that I serve had in his plans for George Zimmerman to murder my son.” With this sound bite, the worth of Zimmerman’s lengthy interview was reduced to zero.

Should George Zimmerman have done this interview? Should he have been better prepped? Is there anything at all that went right with this God-forsaken interview? Give us your PR Verdict!